But my bigger issue with this review is the repeated insinuation that this draft would somehow ossify IPv6 or impede evolution of IPv6 or transports. I believe this characterization is wholly unfounded, unfair, and incorrect. Please comment on this. And if you do want to argue that *this* draft somehow impedes IPv6 or Transport layer evolution then please give specific examples; as I mentioned just expecting everyone to support unlimited extensibility isn't feasible (and note that I gave an example of the cost of unlimited extensibility in a DoS attack). Tom
Personally, I do like the principle of setting some minimum
expectations to increase deployability of extension headers.
I see some feedback on my use of the word "ossify": by which I
mean the possibility that this I-D could cause header formats to
become fixed and then unable to change the format.
For me, fixing minimum values at endpoints is likely to be
changeable in future, but deploying limits in a network device
less so, and much less so where exceeding these result in packet
discard, this included the new proposal for limits for
“intermediate nodes”. There are other comments.
Please don’t assume as a reviewer whether I would love or hate to
see the final publication of this document. The review notes
things seen as needing attention and things needed to be stated
clearly and consistently beyond doubt, so choice of wording in the
I-D matters. I’d be happy to look again at a new revision, if you
plan one.
Best wishes,
Gorry
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
